Tennis
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 108 comments are related to the topic:
Olympic Gold is bigger than a Grand Slam
Olympic Gold is bigger than a Grand Slam
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 108
|
By:
judorick owned in similar fashion to his norwich relegation thread
 |
|
By:
It is not as big at the moment (though its status is just behind and ahead of Masters series) but it will be for Fundamental reasons.
You cannot ignore the fundmentals in sport any more than you can ignore fundamentals in the commodity markets. If you chart the seriousness with which the big players value the Olympics since 1988 the trend is clear and indisputable. The fundamentals of it being a best of 3, one week event where you play most days whilst possibly playing doubles and mixed as well. It may be on a upward trend but it's never going to get close to a slam |
|
By:
Don, you're right that being squeezed into a more intense, shorter time frame certainly makes it unlikely to be the same format as a slam in the forseeable future if ever.
That doesn't necessarily mean it can't pass it in status, as a self contained format, in the fullness of time. e.g The significant differences in strategy between a 100m and 200m race. Michael Johnson last night pointing out the 100m has significantly less strategy but more status. |
|
By:
Especially if, as the status of Olympic tennis rises, there will be more pressure for the very best players to compete for maximum medals including doubles and MD (as you're right to imply I think) the demands on the players will be every bit as great as in a slam, but requiring a different strategy to overcome.
|
|
By:
This edition was clearly overhyped as it was played at a legendary venue as Wimblendon is... but this whole thing will go back to normal as next Olympics will take place in Rio... most likely will be as good as Athens 2004 with 2 chileans on the podium as Nicolas Massu was getting gold...
|
|
By:
e.g The significant differences in strategy between a 100m and 200m race. Michael Johnson last night pointing out the 100m has significantly less strategy but more status.
100m has more status because it's crowning the fastest man in the world, there's no lactic element or running a bend. Less will never be more when it comes to tennis and the prestige of an event. |
|
By:
100m dash is the anticlimax of all olympic decisions!
|
|
By:
Less will never be more when it comes to tennis and the prestige of an event.
That is anti-trend though. What are the grounds for a two week, seven match tennis tournament defining who is the best? There are none, it's just the accepted format and it runs counter to the greater perception of sporting excellence being defined by producing maximum effectiveness in a pinpointed period of time. The accepted norm is that Singles champions are 'superior' to doubles champions, but the Olympic format actually kicks that over with a sneer because medal count (particularly gold medal count) beats all. Murray pointed that out himself, and the fact he got within two points of nailing two golds on the same day will underline that crucial difference in balance. In fact there's every reason in fact to suggest that a player that can land golds in both singles and doubles in the same event, which require differently tailored approaches, has more right to the status of 'ultimate player' than one who simply wins seven singles matches in 14 days the most times. This is why MacEnroe sees the trend so clearly, as he has spent years arguing the case for players proving themselves in both disciplines. |
|
By:
I'm pretty certain that Fed would swap the last Wimbledon for the Olympic gold medal. He probably won't have a career golden slam now; Serena does in singles and in doubles and no one else can say that. Murray will now have the opportunity to try and win every slam and do something Fed probably won't be able to.
|
|
By:
Very true Djwebby.
Some perspective from the bronze medallist (source Tennis.com) 'Juan Martin del Potro who won Argentina's first medal of the Olympic Games when he defeated Novak Djokovic in the bronze-medal match, says that the win was one of the highlights of his career. "I know everybody in Argentina was following this match, trying to give me the power to play my best tennis. I really appreciated that. I think this gift is for all our country," he told reporters. "I'm the most happy man in the world at this moment." |
|
By:
'That is anti-trend though. What are the grounds for a two week, seven match tennis tournament defining who is the best?
There are none, it's just the accepted format and it runs counter to the greater perception of sporting excellence being defined by producing maximum effectiveness in a pinpointed period of time.' How is it anti-trend, just because the Olympics is viewed in a slightly better light than it was in previous years? How about the Australian Open, if trend continues then that'll be greater than Wimbledon. Sod trends there is a ceiling, and the ceiling for the Olympics is a level below that of a slam - Bigger Field - 5 sets, so on average the better player wins more - Rest days for mental and physical recovery - Playing for yourself vs playing for your country, different motivational levels and mental mindset - No doubles affecting mindset and preparation - Money motivation And ignoring that yeah it is the accepted format, a 110m event might prove more exciting than 100m but it's never going to match it. And of course a single winner is superior to doubles, on paper both are gold medals but one is far more competitive, you telling me the 100m final carries the same credibility as the racewalk? |
|
By:
Fed wouldn't consider for a moment swapping Wimbledon for a singles gold even though he would have liked to add it
|
|
By:
These aren't reasons for it being by definition a level below, they are a list of different challenges.
- Bigger Field - Ok but Olympics challenge is to take on a wider range of smaller specialised fields concurrently - 5 sets, so on average the better player wins more - Olympics = Shorter format demands a more accurate implementation of effectiveness, aka the 100m - Rest days for mental and physical recovery - Olympics = Different kind of challenge to keep the body functioning through a more intense sequence of demands - Playing for yourself vs playing for your country, different motivational levels and mental mindset - Agreed - No doubles affecting mindset and preparation Olympics = A more compound approach rather than slam based isolated approach. Neither being 'better' just different challenge - Money motivation Olympics = Challenge to face the different pressure of playing for country Yes the singles carries more staus than the doubles and probably will for a long time, but that's not the point. Hoy riding with the three golds round his neck became an iconic image. For Murray, one gold beat two silvers but one gold and a silver bettered just winning the gold. That is where the Olympics are a shock/challenge to the system because in a slam even if murray was playing MD he wouldn't really care about it and we all know that. But sheer medal count is an additional factor so that creates a challenge that is imo comparable to the standard 4 day singles challenge. |
|
By:
*14 day singles challenge
|
|
By:
Fed wouldn't consider for a moment swapping Wimbledon for a singles gold even though he would have liked to add it
Federer has been targetting the London Olympics for years. By Murray beating him he is denied the second rarest achievement in tennis, the career golden slam. There's only one human being on the planet to have achieved the RAREST achievement in tennis, ie the calendar golden slam And that's Steffi Graf. |
|
By:
I am a Scot and am happy for Murray that he won a Gold in the Olympics. That said I would suggest there are TWO challenges that he must address within the next year or two (failure to do so will leave him feeling he is a failure)....he must WIN a Grand Slam and by doing so he will probably achieve the second .....moving into the top THREE, something he has failed to do so up til now. Yes, he is undoubtedly 4th best in the world but there appears to be quite a void between the top three and Murray.Winning the Gold Medal does NOT mean he is the best tennis player in the world and it would be naive to think so.
|
|
By:
if he wins Toronto he gets top 3 i think
|
|
By:
Therein lies the problem for Murray.By the "rankings" he could well break into the top 3 but inside Murrays head (and in the cold light of the day) he KNOWS Djokovic,Federer and Nadal are BETTER players than him. I do not believe that in ten years time Murray will be happy if the only thing he can show on his CV is an Olympic Gold Medal
|
|
By:
Therein lies the problem for Murray.By the "rankings" he could well break into the top 3 but inside Murrays head (and in the cold light of the day) he KNOWS Djokovic,Federer and Nadal are BETTER players than him. I do not believe that in ten years time Murray will be happy if the only thing he can show on his CV is an Olympic Gold Medal
|
|
By:
A lot of people mistake slam for grand slam... a Grand Slam is when you win all the slams in the same year, each individual tourney is only refered as a "Slam". The Golden Grand Slam is made of Olympics and Grand Slam, hence winning all five in the same year
|
|
By:
Federer has been targetting the London Olympics for years. By Murray beating him he is denied the second rarest achievement in tennis, the career golden slam.
And by winning Wimbledon he notched up GS 17, equalled Sampras's 7 Wimbledons, returned to No1 and set a new record for weeks at No1. He'll have wanted to win the Gold a lot but not ahead of Wimbledon, no chance |
|
By:
At this point Federer is regarded as the best player ever even without Olympic Gold and Davis Cup. I'm sure if Murray hypothetically had the chance to choose between this year's Wimbledon and Olympic medal he will choose the slam. There's no question and you know it. Stop arguing over the importance of the Olympic event. It is important but the title says "Olympic Gold is bigger than a Grand Slam" wich i feel most people disagree with. As i said, this gold medal will look much better in the future if Murray adds a few slams. He is still the best player (ever ?) without a slam and that's not something to be very proud of.
|
|
By:
tbf he already was WR #2 for 4 weeks (in 2009), and climbed to #3 several times.
Other than Fed expect Nadull to drop fast or even end his career soon being replaced by JMDP in the top 4. |
|
By:
DonNo1 is right. wimbledon #7 / GS#17 or an olympic gold is a no-brainer.
just because people want to believe murray has made that final breakthrough doesnt make it so |
|
By:
can't believe this knob still trying to argue this point
once the USO gets under way no one on the tour is going to pay any attention to murrays gold medal |
|
By:
Olympic Gold is bigger than a Grand Slam and whatever is more than some silly tennis (only ATP made tennis players heroes and idols).
How difficult is to win the Olympic Games shows the fact that one can easily win 17 GS tournaments but not a single gold medal at OG. Not being British myself (thank God) must say well done Murray! |
|
By:
"A lot of people mistake slam for grand slam... a Grand Slam is when you win all the slams in the same year, each individual tourney is only refered as a "Slam". The Golden Grand Slam is made of Olympics and Grand Slam, hence winning all five in the same year"
Yes, even Sue Barker often refers to a Slam as a Grand Slam. It drives me nuts. |
|
By:
Is this the thread where a bunch of english suck their dciks and try to convince the world that a clearly inferior tourney is best than a slam?
yeah sure tap tap murray, |
|
By:
The simple fact that Murray won it proves that Grand Slams are more important. FACT
|